Assessing the comparability of hip arthroplasty registries in order to improve the recording and monitoring of outcome
2016
Aims We aimed to assess the comparability of data in joint replacement
registries and identify ways of improving the comparisons between
registries and the overall monitoring of joint replacement surgery. Materials and Methods We conducted a review of registries that are full members of
the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries with publicly
available annual reports in English. Of the six registries which
were included, we compared the reporting of: mean age, definitions
for revision and re-operation, reasons for revision, the approach
to analysing revisions, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)
for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hip resurfacing
arthroplasty (HRA). Results Outcomes were infrequently reported for HRA compared with THA
and all hip arthroplasties. Revisions were consistently defined,
though re-operation was defined by one registry. Implant survival
was most commonly reported as the cumulative incidence of revision
using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Three registries reported patient
reported outcome measures. Conclusion More consistency in the reporting of outcomes for specific types
of procedures is needed to improve the interpretation of joint registry
data and accurately monitor safety trends. As collecting additional
details of surgical and patient-reported outcomes becomes increasingly
important, the experience of established registries will be valuable
in establishing consistency among registries while maintaining the
quality of data. Take home message: As the volume of joint replacements performed
each year continues to increase, greater consistency in the reporting
of surgical and patient-reported outcomes among joint replacement
registries would improve the interpretation and comparability of
these data to monitor outcomes accurately. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:442–51.
Keywords:
- Correction
- Source
- Cite
- Save
- Machine Reading By IdeaReader
46
References
15
Citations
NaN
KQI